Stark County Bar Ass'n v. Marinelli
144 Ohio St. 3d 341
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Deborah M. Marinelli, admitted 2001, was charged in a December 2013 amended complaint with nearly 200 Professional Conduct Rule violations for abandoning bankruptcy matters for 23 clients.
- Parties stipulated to facts, misconduct, and aggravating/mitigating factors; relator withdrew over 60 alleged violations as part of the stipulation.
- The disciplinary panel found Marinelli committed more than 95 rule violations (including failure to file petitions for 20 clients, failure to communicate, failure to refund, and failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries) and recommended dismissing ~90 unsupported allegations.
- Facts showed Marinelli ceased office work and client communication after personal turmoil (divorce), stopped paying rent, and later provided full refunds to 20 clients after relator obtained files; she also failed to timely respond to disciplinary demands.
- Aggravating factors: pattern of multiple offenses, failure to cooperate, harm to vulnerable clients. Mitigating factors: no prior record, no dishonest/ selfish motive, evidence of good character; but limited rehabilitation at hearing.
- The Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings and sanctioned Marinelli with a two-year suspension, the second year stayed on conditions, plus two years of monitored probation upon reinstatement; costs taxed to Marinelli.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marinelli abandoned client bankruptcy matters and violated duties of competence, diligence, communication, and safekeeping of client funds | Marinelli abandoned ~23 matters, failed to file petitions, failed to communicate, failed to refund or respond to disciplinary inquiries, violating multiple Prof.Cond.R. | Marinelli attributed conduct to personal crisis (divorce/depression), returned client funds at hearing, and did not act with dishonest motive | Court adopted board: violations proven by clear and convincing evidence (multiple rule violations proven) |
| Whether respondent failed to respond to disciplinary demands | Relator: respondent knowingly failed to respond to investigation demands (Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b)) | Marinelli offered limited cooperation and mitigation based on personal circumstances | Court found 17 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) established |
| Appropriate sanction given misconduct and mitigating circumstances | Relator argued for discipline to protect public and reflect seriousness of multiple abandons and unrefunded funds | Marinelli urged mitigation (mental-health issues, restitution) and requested leniency | Court imposed two-year suspension with second year stayed on stringent conditions and two-year monitored probation upon reinstatement |
| Conditions for stayed year and reinstatement | Relator sought conditions ensuring rehabilitation and public protection | Marinelli accepted or agreed to conditions (counseling, OLAP, IOLTA, CLE, costs) | Court stayed second year conditioned on counseling/OLAP compliance, IOLTA, CLE, payment of costs, and no further misconduct; failure to comply revokes stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Pritchard, 961 N.E.2d 165 (Ohio 2012) (indefinite suspension for attorney who abandoned ~20 matters while in deep depression; contrasted facts and lack of restitution)
- Erie-Huron Grievance Commt. v. Stoll, 939 N.E.2d 166 (Ohio 2010) (two-year suspension with second year stayed for attorney who neglected 22 matters while suffering depression)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Travis, 804 N.E.2d 969 (Ohio 2004) (two-year suspension with partial stay for attorney who neglected 28 cases during personal hardships, causing prejudice to clients)